144 Hz Monitors. Do I need one? Should I get something else?

F

FenFox

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 20, 2016
Messages
296
-Budget: $400-450 CAD. Absolutely nothing over $450.

-Nvidia 2080 GPU.

-Probably a good mix between gaming and productivity is advisable. (Meaning, I'd really rather not use a TN, because I'll be using this monitor for work as well).

-A year ago I used to want a G-Sync 1440p, but now there's no need to buy G-Sync and while my GPU can easily handle 1440p, I'm thinking maybe 1080p is better due to my budget restraints and even higher FPS in games.

-I also wanted a maximum of 24" for 1080p, but it seems there are some nice 27" 1080p options so maybe I'll have to settle.

-What do you recommend? Here's 2 monitors I've been looking at: (The Asus may have the advantage due to the stand being adjustable).

https://www.amazon.ca/Acer-VG271-Pbmiipx-Technology-DisplayHDR400/dp/B07MDXF81K/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Acer+-+VG271&qid=1561146356&s=gateway&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.ca/Asus-VG279Q-Monitor-FreeSync-Adaptive/dp/B07KXHTRT5/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=asus+VG279Q&qid=1561183081&s=gateway&sr=8-1
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Keljian said:
Is VA acceptable?

https://www.amazon.ca/LG-2UK550-B-Monitor-Freesync-Technology/dp/B07NFTWHSG/ref=sr_1_3?crid=BS878XIC40NB&keywords=lg+32uk550-b&qid=1561194513&s=gateway&sprefix=LG+32U,aps,333&sr=8-3

I recently bought this, and am very happy with it. It has freesync (which is supported by nvidia). It is 4k, and it is 32 inch, has an adjustable stand and does 10 bit color. Lowest Amazon price is $404 CAD
Click to expand...

Hmm, I would imagine the HDR isn't very good for $468/404. Plus while I wouldn't mind a 32", it probably would be too big for gaming and I don't really wanna game at 4K because it would hurt framerate too much even with a GPU like I have. And... I cannot find the refresh/Hz which is probably low?
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
60hz, with freesync. HDR has never done much for me , but 10 bit color works without it.

Depends on the type of gaming you are doing I suppose
 
For reference I am running a 1080ti, and for assassin’s creed origins with freesync it is fine. Everything turned right up
 
I went from 60hz to 144hz and it's a really nice noticeable difference. FPS and fast action is so much smoother when looking or moving around, it's easier to notice things on screen.
I didn't want to spend much so I went with a MSI monitor and it's great for gaming. I got the 32" but here is a 27"

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07F9YJK76/ref=psdc_1292115011_t2_B07NQG1FFB
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Between 60-90hz I notice a difference, but with the smoothness of freesync, eh maybe I just have older eyes
 
Everyone's eyes are a little different in how they perceive framerate but I notice big differences up to about 90 fps(hz) and diminishing returns on framerates up to about 120 which is where I stop noticing a difference. Mine can do 144Hz but I have it at 120Hz because that's the most it can do in 10 bit mode and I'd rather have that.

When I recently bought a new monitor I went with 27" 1440p because it seemed like the sweet spot in terms of size, pixel density, and gpu requirements. 4K still seems like a bit too demanding for even high end gpus right now and it seems like it would be wasted on anything smaller than 32" which I think is bigger than I want for a desktop monitor, I'd either have to push it back some(negating the size benefit) or some of the screen would end up in my periphery vision.

I ended up with the Gigabyte ad27q which is one of two using the new Innolux IPS panel which is better than the AU Optics panels used in other IPS monitors that size, it sounds like it might be more than you want to spend though. Acer makes a more basic monitor with this panel and I think it might be on sale right now for $300 but it had a lot of complaints about backlight bleed.
 
Ebernanut said:
Everyone's eyes are a little different in how they perceive framerate but I notice big differences up to about 90 fps(hz) and diminishing returns on framerates up to about 120 which is where I stop noticing a difference. Mine can do 144Hz but I have it at 120Hz because that's the most it can do in 10 bit mode and I'd rather have that.
Click to expand...
If standard monitor had 90Hz then I wouldn't even necessarily recommend anything 'faster' to most people. Unfortunately standard is 60Hz with some lucky monitors doing more with overclocking... which unfortunately not many people do

10bit is not really necessary, especially on Radeon which by default have awesome dithering implementation that might be even better than what you have in your monitor. Definitely not worse. And even without it 10bit applications from what I noticed last lime I tested it get dithering. NV cards can also do dithering for gamma/LUT correction albeit only with some registry tweaks.

Ebernanut said:
When I recently bought a new monitor I went with 27" 1440p because it seemed like the sweet spot in terms of size, pixel density, and gpu requirements. 4K still seems like a bit too demanding for even high end gpus right now and it seems like it would be wasted on anything smaller than 32" which I think is bigger than I want for a desktop monitor, I'd either have to push it back some(negating the size benefit) or some of the screen would end up in my periphery vision.
Click to expand...
Depending on your sight 4K at 27" might be actually pretty good resolution for desktop. While tiny fonts might be too much for eyes to handle comfortably (but they might as well be fine) most programs have zoom/scale function and all you get is reduction of unnecessarily huge toolbars (it is the trend today to make all GUI elements ridiculously oversized...) while getting benefit of increased PPI like better for and detail rendering.

For games 1440p is however definitely a sweet spot and for average person when it comes to being able to comfortably use without using windows scaling.


Ebernanut said:
I ended up with the Gigabyte ad27q which is one of two using the new Innolux IPS panel which is better than the AU Optics panels used in other IPS monitors that size, it sounds like it might be more than you want to spend though. Acer makes a more basic monitor with this panel and I think it might be on sale right now for $300 but it had a lot of complaints about backlight bleed.
Click to expand...
AUO "A-HVA" tend to have pretty severe "IPS glow" phenomenon on it when viewing closer than from meter away (on 27"). These expensive Asus/Acer with 4K 144Hz G-Sync seem to have much better viewing angles though.
Colors on my AUO panel are pretty decent though. Not reference quality but nothing to complain about either. It is most important that LEDs are native 6500K and gamut close to sRGB.

This Aorus looks pretty nice in reviews. From photos on tftcentral IPS glow seems less severe than typical AUO panel which have more silver/white glow.
One major flaw is that you cannot change brightness in sRGB mode which is pretty much a must. 186cd/m2 might be a bit too much to some people. This is pretty stupid design considering brightness control have nothing to do with sRGB emulation and no one should ever lock this setting. And they did not even set it somewhere according to sRGB recommended 80-120cd/m2. Otherwise it seems like pretty great gaming display with good 144Hz overdrive (on 60Hz at "speed" they really overdid it though XD)
 
Budzman said:
I went from 60hz to 144hz and it's a really nice noticeable difference. FPS and fast action is so much smoother when looking or moving around, it's easier to notice things on screen.
Click to expand...
Other than smoother and clearer visuals higher refresh rates also drastically reduce input lag.
At 60Hz with G-Sync/Freesync when everything is properly configured it is on the level that is barely non-irritating and when it is improperly configured (like having V-Sync ON and no framerate limiter and game just sits at 60fps) it is irritating as hell.
144Hz monitor on the other hand is not irritating even when game hits frame-rate ceiling when it is not the response is simply awesome.
 
Ebernanut said:
When I recently bought a new monitor I went with 27" 1440p because it seemed like the sweet spot in terms of size, pixel density, and gpu requirements.
Click to expand...

About a year and a half ago I wanted to buy a G-Sync 27" 1440p. But from what I've heard online, certain games can really struggle at 1440p even with a 2080 GPU.

-Metro Exodus, Assassin's Creed Odyssey, and a few others.

Also, yeah, even if I did want a 27" 1440p, my budget is preferably capped at 400 CAD. I would've been more than happy with 1080p if they went with 24" instead of 27". I really wonder what they were thinking.....
 
Not really true. I have a 1080 and run every game I play over 75hz (generally I target 120hz avg) on my ROG swift 27” or x900 at 1440p. Modern games are really tweakable and if you look at digital foundry videos or on forums you can see how every game can hit better frame rates changing settings with no visible impact. The 2080 can game at 1440p at high frame rates no problem. With g-sync you don’t need exactly 144hz but higher rates are better.
I have seen so many videos and listened to podcasts of highly sceptical console players now playing destiny 2, fortnite or apex on PC at high hz and loving it.
 
I think 27 inch 1440P is the sweet spot, especially with your 2080, having gone high refresh rate, I can't go back, I tested out a 32 inch 4K 60Hz and sold it. Just felt too slow, between the lower refresh rate and the lower FPS, it wasn't worth the extra pixels.
- I have a freesync monitor but actually never have it on because my Radeon VII goes above the freesync range which you're 2080 should be able to do at 1440P on most games as well.
- I guess I could use CRU and set a custom range but the tearing doesn't bother me when gaming, at least not yet


https://www.newegg.ca/p/3C6-0008-00075 $472 VA panel, curved but no freesync
 
crazycuz20 said:
- I have a freesync monitor but actually never have it on because my Radeon VII goes above the freesync range
Click to expand...

Just an FYI, newer monitors with freesync generally support it all the way to the highest refresh rate.

I was skeptical that variable refresh rate would make much of a difference but after using it I'm sold on it and wouldn't want to go back to a monitor without it again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top